Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spy (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Comedic Gold
From the brilliant Paul Feig, director of the ridiculously funny Bridesmaids and Sandra Bullock’s laugh-a-minute The Heat comes the latest in the secret agent comedy film, Spy. But does this film, fronted by the ever-popular Melissa McCarthy have what it takes to play with the big boys in the genre?
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cop Out (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
For Detectives Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis), and Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan), life on the beat is about to become very dangerous and complex. In the new movie “Cop Out” the two buddies find themselves at odds with their supervisor after a case goes horribly wrong and looking at a thirty day unpaid suspension.
This is a disaster for Jimmy as his only daughter is about to get married and he needs the money to pay for the wedding to avoid his ego having to absorb the insult of having his former wives new husband pick up the tab.
Undaunted Jimmy decides to sell a prized baseball card to cover the 48K wedding tab, and looks forward to being able to make his daughters dream wedding a reality. Things do not go as planned as Jimmy has his card stolen which forces Paul and Jimmy to take drastic actions to recover it.
The duo track down the card thief (Seann William Scott), and learn that he traded the card to a local drug lord who is as passionate about baseball as he is deadly to all those who stand in his way.
Jimmy and Paul soon realize that they must deal with the enemy in an effort to retrieve the card as his request that they find his stolen Mercedes seems a small price to pay for the safe return of the prized card.
Upon locating the Mercedes, Jimmy and Paul learn that a much larger game is afoot and find themselves on the run for goons and their fellow cops as they try to keep a key witness safe and retrieve the card.
The film has some very funny moments and Director Kevin Smith gets some good laughs from the material but the film suffers from a disjointed plot and some glaring holes which requires some major leaps of faith from the audience.
For example, we are expected to believe that a couple of thieves would steal a car and sell it but nowhere in the process would the thieves or new owner bother to look in the trunk much less hear the noises coming from within.
We are given a few bits about Jimmy and Paul, such as Paul’s paranoia regarding his wife and his inability to question a suspect, but the duo are so thinly developed the seem to have been crafted from the Buddy Cop film 101 guide.
Smith has always been a favorite of mine as I have always liked the way he blends biting satire and humor with interesting characters and conversations.
Action does not seem to yet be an area of comfort for Smith as he does pull off the action sequences in the film but they seem very restrained for what audiences have come to expect from today’s action films.
This time out Smith was limited to directing and editing and the film seems to be badly in need of his writing abilities.
Given his past issues with trying to do films for a big studio, it was a surprise to me that Smith did the film which was originally entitled “The Two Dicks”.
Thankfully his skilled handling of the cast and humor is what tips the scales in the films favor making “Cop Out” a flawed but at times very funny film.
This is a disaster for Jimmy as his only daughter is about to get married and he needs the money to pay for the wedding to avoid his ego having to absorb the insult of having his former wives new husband pick up the tab.
Undaunted Jimmy decides to sell a prized baseball card to cover the 48K wedding tab, and looks forward to being able to make his daughters dream wedding a reality. Things do not go as planned as Jimmy has his card stolen which forces Paul and Jimmy to take drastic actions to recover it.
The duo track down the card thief (Seann William Scott), and learn that he traded the card to a local drug lord who is as passionate about baseball as he is deadly to all those who stand in his way.
Jimmy and Paul soon realize that they must deal with the enemy in an effort to retrieve the card as his request that they find his stolen Mercedes seems a small price to pay for the safe return of the prized card.
Upon locating the Mercedes, Jimmy and Paul learn that a much larger game is afoot and find themselves on the run for goons and their fellow cops as they try to keep a key witness safe and retrieve the card.
The film has some very funny moments and Director Kevin Smith gets some good laughs from the material but the film suffers from a disjointed plot and some glaring holes which requires some major leaps of faith from the audience.
For example, we are expected to believe that a couple of thieves would steal a car and sell it but nowhere in the process would the thieves or new owner bother to look in the trunk much less hear the noises coming from within.
We are given a few bits about Jimmy and Paul, such as Paul’s paranoia regarding his wife and his inability to question a suspect, but the duo are so thinly developed the seem to have been crafted from the Buddy Cop film 101 guide.
Smith has always been a favorite of mine as I have always liked the way he blends biting satire and humor with interesting characters and conversations.
Action does not seem to yet be an area of comfort for Smith as he does pull off the action sequences in the film but they seem very restrained for what audiences have come to expect from today’s action films.
This time out Smith was limited to directing and editing and the film seems to be badly in need of his writing abilities.
Given his past issues with trying to do films for a big studio, it was a surprise to me that Smith did the film which was originally entitled “The Two Dicks”.
Thankfully his skilled handling of the cast and humor is what tips the scales in the films favor making “Cop Out” a flawed but at times very funny film.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Titanic (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2021
Shame about the romance
Film #13 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Titanic
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Titanic is a rather divisive film. There are many that absolutely love it, the creators of this list among them I don’t doubt. And then there are those that can’t stand it, despite it’s 11 Oscar wins. When it was first released, Titanic’s popularity was immense and it was all the rage at my high school. At that time I loved it like everyone else, but over the years I’ve grown to notice its flaws as well.
Titanic is another epic from the mind of James Cameron and unsurprisingly tells the real life story behind the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. As the true story wasn’t enough, the sinking is shown from the point of view of a love story between Rose Dewitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) and Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio). In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) and his team are searching the wreckage of the Titanic for a rare diamond and instead come across a preserved drawing of Rose, who meets with Brock and tells the story of her experiences onboard. These experiences involve a class divide, a fiancé with anger management issues (Billy Zane) and some nice (Kathy Bates) and not very nice (Frances Fisher) female aristocrats.
While I can understand why Cameron has intertwined a romance into this real life tragedy, for me it’s this story that lessens the impact of such a horrific tale and makes this into not quite the masterpiece he wanted it to be. There are the obvious plot holes and irrational actions – the hugely memorable water door scene that could blatantly fit more than one person, and the motives for keeping a invaluable diamond hidden for 80+ years only to throw it away in the ocean – are just two of the laughably bad scenes in this. Paired with a sometimes dodgy script (there’s a scene where Rose says “Jack” over half a dozen times in less than a minute) and some cheesy exposition and narration from the older Rose, do not make for an endearing story.
However if you can ignore the romance and poor fictional story, the rest of Titanic is an impressive bit of filmmaking. From the opening shots featuring real life footage of the actual wreckage of the Titanic to the effects used to bring the ship to life, they are truly stunning. You can really appreciate the love and care that has gone in to making this film, and the cinematography is faultless. Water is not an easy element to film yet James Cameron has mastered it with ease and including shots of the real wreckage only adds to the emotions that this evokes, especially as there are a lot of facts interlaced within the romance – the band continuing to play despite impending death is particularly moving. The cast too are strong despite the sometimes questionable material they have to work with. This is undoubtedly the film that made both Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet megastars in their own rights, although for me I much preferred the more low key performances from the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill (as Captain Smith) and Victor Garber (as ship builder Thomas Andrews).
Titanic is not perfect. It is a drawn out and overly long romance set aboard a disaster movie and it can’t justify being longer than 3 hours. However despite it’s flaws, it is still a masterpiece in filmmaking and truly an epic film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love and Monsters (2021) in Movies
Apr 25, 2021
This is the nearest I've gotten to having a surprise film without the cinema. Netflix, I applaud you.
The world has been ravaged by a plague of mutated animals and the remaining humans have been in hiding for the last seven years. But Joel's life has changed and now he wants to leave the colony to find the girl he loved when the world changed. The only problem? She's 85 miles away, and he's a little inept.
I really love a good disaster/apocalyptic film, and the "how it happens" portion is usually my favourite part. There's only a small amount of that, and I think they could have gone into that slightly more (because I always love an origin story). What we do get here though leads us in well and gives us a very quick and solid summation of what we need to know.
There's a slight Lost feeling to the whole film, and that's not a bad thing, it gave it a very comfortable vibe. What the story was showing the viewer, and where it leads were wonderfully crafted... and let's move on to the next bit before I start gushing.
Dylan O'Brien plays the lead role of Joel, as well as supplying his voiceover for the film as well, and both bits were just perfect. He's humorous, sweet, courageous and a bit scared from time to time, and you see that evolve throughout the film. There are times where you might want to give him a talking to about how the real world works, but ultimately he is exactly right for this story.
Along his journey, Joel meets Clyde (Michael Rooker) and Minnow (Ariana Greenblatt, who I felt like I knew but couldn't place. If you look her up you'll discover she is Young Gamora). These two are such an entertaining duo. Bonded through crisis, they're taken their own way and when they meet Joel they form a new connection and help him to become the person he needs to be. It was so well thought-out, and honestly, they nailed the casting. I'd happily watch a sequel of those two on their adventures.
Love and Monsters combines the film and the voiceover so well that it gives you a seamless story that isn't filled with forced scenes that are trying to get necessary points across. Every scene added value for me.
Looking at the effects and design you can tell someone had fun creating the creatures and landscape. They're vibrant and inventive, and the fact that they clearly thought through everything from the environments each colony live in, to what the creatures do, is just a delight on screen. I think the crab is by far my favourite example of this.
For a film I loved this much, I'm surprised at how little I've written. Are there things I could nitpick over? Possibly. But while there are things I'd have loved to see in the film, what we were given was exactly what it needed to be. There was a bit of everything and some moments of emotion that I really wasn't expecting. I'm just so glad I saw this film, and I had absolutely no hesitation in the score I gave this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/love-and-monsters-movie-review.html
The world has been ravaged by a plague of mutated animals and the remaining humans have been in hiding for the last seven years. But Joel's life has changed and now he wants to leave the colony to find the girl he loved when the world changed. The only problem? She's 85 miles away, and he's a little inept.
I really love a good disaster/apocalyptic film, and the "how it happens" portion is usually my favourite part. There's only a small amount of that, and I think they could have gone into that slightly more (because I always love an origin story). What we do get here though leads us in well and gives us a very quick and solid summation of what we need to know.
There's a slight Lost feeling to the whole film, and that's not a bad thing, it gave it a very comfortable vibe. What the story was showing the viewer, and where it leads were wonderfully crafted... and let's move on to the next bit before I start gushing.
Dylan O'Brien plays the lead role of Joel, as well as supplying his voiceover for the film as well, and both bits were just perfect. He's humorous, sweet, courageous and a bit scared from time to time, and you see that evolve throughout the film. There are times where you might want to give him a talking to about how the real world works, but ultimately he is exactly right for this story.
Along his journey, Joel meets Clyde (Michael Rooker) and Minnow (Ariana Greenblatt, who I felt like I knew but couldn't place. If you look her up you'll discover she is Young Gamora). These two are such an entertaining duo. Bonded through crisis, they're taken their own way and when they meet Joel they form a new connection and help him to become the person he needs to be. It was so well thought-out, and honestly, they nailed the casting. I'd happily watch a sequel of those two on their adventures.
Love and Monsters combines the film and the voiceover so well that it gives you a seamless story that isn't filled with forced scenes that are trying to get necessary points across. Every scene added value for me.
Looking at the effects and design you can tell someone had fun creating the creatures and landscape. They're vibrant and inventive, and the fact that they clearly thought through everything from the environments each colony live in, to what the creatures do, is just a delight on screen. I think the crab is by far my favourite example of this.
For a film I loved this much, I'm surprised at how little I've written. Are there things I could nitpick over? Possibly. But while there are things I'd have loved to see in the film, what we were given was exactly what it needed to be. There was a bit of everything and some moments of emotion that I really wasn't expecting. I'm just so glad I saw this film, and I had absolutely no hesitation in the score I gave this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/love-and-monsters-movie-review.html
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
My love for Eurovision is as deep as some of the songs in Eurovision attempt to be, I live for ridiculous costumes and dance moves... and I LOVE quips from Graham. I'm glad I didn't have a lot of time to really think about what this film might come out to be, it would definitely have hindered the watching process.
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
As a child Lars makes a connection with the Eurovision Song Contest that will follow him through his adult life, it will be his obsession, his life, and it will lead him on an adventure he could never imagine. When an unimaginable miracle happens, Fire Saga make their way to the greatest song contest in the world. The competition is fierce and the pair must navigate more than one bump on their road to Eurovision success.
Firstly I want to make a clear point about this film... it's bad, not in a good way, and then it's good, but not in the bad way. When I started watching it I was so very annoyed and then at some point I realised I was enjoying myself. Not unlike watching the actual contest.
Will Ferrell has never particularly been a draw for me and when I tried to bring any Rachel McAdams film to mind I went blank... Together this pairing make an interesting team though, there's a good dynamic and I'm not particularly against anything they do, but there's a certain sloppiness to the story that makes it difficult to root for them. There are a lot of scenes that feel unnecessary or overplay a joke and somehow the film is just over two hours long... this idea definitely would have suited something between 90 and 105 minutes.
The singers mostly make their cameos in a Pitch Perfect-esque sing-off, that was one of the first things I both hated and loved at the same time. Singing in films brings me joy and everybody who participated is very talented... but it was so cheesy. Our other stars are fine, Dan Stevens as Alexander has just the right amount of cliche characteristics and Pierce Brosnan as Lars' father is... I don't know how to describe it really but I was loving the look.
Accents on the actors... they might not necessarily be bad but coming from people that aren't native made it feel like they were over the top. I'm sure this is more to do with the fact that I know what the people should sound like and with acting that isn't convincing enough it all collides into chaos in my brain.
They definitely managed to create some great moments that will put you in a good Eurovision mood. I loved the music video they create right at the beginning, and honestly, if someone doesn't use that for their next entry I really think they're missing out. We've got the bizarre songs and over the top props that make Eurovision such a spectacle. But that's where we have my overall issue with the film.
Eurovision Song Contest started pretty badly (apart from that video) and I was really thinking it was going to be a disaster, once they get to the contest it is so much better. Taking those excess minutes out of the beginning (and removing that final piece of the ending) and rebalancing the film with more contest would have made it better, not that this is a bad film, it just could have been better. There are a lot of flaws throughout but it manages to turn it around and give something charming and entertaining that will appeal to a lot of people, I'd be interested to see how this gets received outside of Europe though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/eurovision-song-contest-movie-review.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020) in Movies
Oct 14, 2020
Bleak and interesting
David Attenborough is possibly the most recognised face (and voice) when it comes to nature and our planet, and it’d be safe to say he’s also one of the most respected advisors on the environment. Now 94 years old, A Life on Our Planet is his “witness statement” for the environment and details his 60+ year career and how steeply the planet has declined during this time.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
In the opening scene of this documentary Attenborough is in Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst man-made disasters in history. His comparison of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster to the impact humanity is having gradually on the environment is not one that many would have even considered, but it’s provides a stark warning. And it continues in this same vein throughout.
Whilst this still features beautifully captured videos of nature and historical footage of Attenborough throughout his career, this documentary has very dark and bleak overtones. Even the statistics on world population, carbon content and decrease in wilderness provided for certain years in Attenborough’s career prove to be crystal clear and unmistakably illustrating just how badly we’ve treated our planet in the space of a mere 90 years. For reference, wilderness in the 1930s was at 66% - in 2020 it has nearly halved to 35%. When you see it there in black and white, it’s terrifying.
Even more terrifying is Attenborough’s glimpse into the future. Showing what will happen to us and our planet in the 2030s to 2100s and beyond, it’s scarier than any horror film you will ever see. And what’s worrying is that the chances of this happening is a lot more likely than anything you see in a scary movie.
Fortunately this does move away from the rather effective warnings and dark tones and goes on to discuss how we can change to prevent this bleak future from coming true. These resolutions – stopping deforestation and overfishing, stabilising the population, more plant based diets – are nothing that we haven’t heard of before. However Attenborough does at least go on to suggest how we as a planet can move towards achieving the above and promote some rather positive success stories where this has already been achieved in a number of places across the globe.
My problem with this documentary is two fold. For one, Attenborough steers clear of the politics and blame game and doesn’t point the finger at any areas of society that may be more at fault than others (i.e. the super wealthy and their excesses). He just seems like he’s being too nice when really he needs to call out the people and areas that hold more responsibility.
My other issue is that he doesn’t relate the solutions to how we can help as individuals. Other than moving to a more plant based diet, the solutions proposed are not things that Joe public can help with and for me personally I found this very frustrating. I want to know what I personally can do to help and sadly I have no control over poaching, deforestation or over-fishing. I barely have any input into my local council’s initiative to build thousands of houses on the greenbelt behind my house, so the issues and solutions discussed here seem rather overwhelming and feel almost impossible to achieve.
However despite this, Attenborough has created a rather bleak and stark documentary that proves to be both depressing and incredibly moving and informative to watch. It will undoubtedly spur many into action and prove to be the warning we as a people need, especially with the final scenes showing how the wilderness has returned to Chernobyl and Attenborough’s reminder that we’re not saving the planet, we’re saving ourselves. I just hope those higher up that have the true power to put the solutions in place have watched this and taken note.
The Weather Station by The Weather Station
Album Watch
On her fourth (and tellingly self-titled) album as The Weather Station, Tamara Lindeman reinvents,...
alternative folk rock